2019-04-03 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes

Home Browse Search

ra Town of Reading i Meeting Minutes rtECEIVEU TOWN CLERK READING, MA. Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Zoning Board of Appeals 2613 JUN -6 PM 3: 01 Date: 2019-04-03 Time: 7:00 PM Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Select Board Meeting Room Address: 16 Lowell Street Session: Purpose: Public Hearing Version: Attendees: Members - Present: John Jarema Robert Redfern Cy Caouette Nick Pernice Kyle Tornow Erik Hagstrom Members - Not Present: Others Present: Mark Dupell, Suji Rodgers Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Kristen Grover Topics of Discussion: Case#19-06 —153 Bancroft Ave The Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a Public Hearing in the Selectmen's Meeting Room at Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts on Wednesday,April 3, 2019 at 7:00 PM on the application of George and Suji Rodgers,pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 40A §10 for a Variance under Reading Zoning Bylaw Sections 6.3 and 7.4 to allow an existing non-conforming deck to remain;or a determination under M.G.L Ch. 40A §7 to allow the deck,which was built without permits,to achieve legal non-conforming status, on the property located at 193 Bancroft Avenue in Reading, Massachusetts. Mr. Jarema called the meeting to order, read the case into record and swore in the Applicant. Mr. Jarema asked Mr. Dupell to discuss the information he provided and the denial letter from Mr. Redmond. Mr. Dupell stated the Applicant applied for a permit to build a 2 story addition which is when Mr. Redmond noticed the deck was in violation and no permits had been issued for it. He advised that the Applicant stated the deck was there when she bought the house and it should be grandfathered. Mr. Dupell stated Mr. Redmond wrote a denial letter for a Variance and in the meantime he has found aerial photographs from 2015 and 2008 that show the deck existing since then. He discussed the situations arising from this information. He stated the Building Department would have no problem with a determination of grandfathering for the deck but would ask that the retaining wall be removed. Ms. Rodgers stated the issue is simply with the deck and presented pictures from the appraisal at the time the house was purchased that shows the deck. She added that the neighbors support that it has been there for approximately 20 years. She stated is should be grandfathered since it was there for longer than 10 years, before they owned the house. Mr. Dupell reminded all that the 10 year statute does not depend on ownership; Page I 1